WPT Final Tables are a Joke |
|
Posted Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:36 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I mean, I've seen SnG's with better structures. $100,000/$200,000 blinds when there's like $8,000,000 on the table is beyond ridiculous (this is on the Legends of Poker on right now). I'm sorry, but it is unfair to the great players out there who hack through these big fields for days with a fair structure, just to walk into a crap shoot for the majority of the prize pool.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:43 pm GMT by Ewi
But those all-ins every other hand make for such great TV! 
Posted Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:07 am GMT by flafishy
A lot of the players ... Negreanu, Annie Duke, Todd Brunson ... have been complaining about it.
Apparently, the blind levels are reasonable until you get down to the final table, then the WPT puts rocket fuel in them to make things go quicker and keep production costs in line. They simply couldn't afford to have to do coverage on a 12-hour final table, which is routine for the WSOP. It also doesn't hurt that it does force a lot of action, which makes for exciting TV.
The WPT is a made-for-TV event, has been from the beginning. So they do whatever necessary to make it TV-friendly.
Posted Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:10 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Whatever... they could easily afford to pay their crew overtime, as WPT is a multi-million dollar industry. What this is really about is making Poker for the spectators, not the players.
Imagine if the NFL all of a sudden made every game only 10 minutes long and outlawed all running--pass is the only viable maneuver. That's more exciting for the audience right? Or how about NBA with only 3-pointers and dunks allowed? That would be more exciting to watch too.
Personally, I'm behind any pro who boycotts the WPT right now. I understand it's great up until the final table, but players should not have to play a crapshoot for 50% of the prize pool. Plus it's total garbage that the WPT requires players to sign a release saying that WPT can use their name and likeness for anything without compensation--that's just wrong.
Posted Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:47 am GMT by galderon
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | Imagine if the NFL all of a sudden made every game only 10 minutes long and outlawed all running--pass is the only viable maneuver. That's more exciting for the audience right? |
Actually, they did. It was called the XFL. Not those changes specificially, but changes to the rules with the intention of making the game more exciting to watch. Unfortunately for them, they were unable to please both types of fans at the same time (NFL fans and WWE fans) and it tanked.
In poker's case, there are more fish than professionals, so the WPT caters to the former group. The typical fan doesn't care about pot odds or the details that go with making good poker decisions...they want to see some guy go all-in with crap and catch miracle cards.
Posted Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:27 pm GMT by truplaya_177
Yeah, i ve heard this 'opinion' before. it's definently a problem , but a LOT of the game's top pro's aren't in the WPT anyways becasue the WPT can use they're name to sell they're products. also dealmaking, staking players in tournaments, and i forget what Mike Sexton also said that's whats wrong in todays poker world.
Posted Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:33 pm GMT by TxShadow
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | Whatever... they could easily afford to pay their crew overtime, as WPT is a multi-million dollar industry. What this is really about is making Poker for the spectators, not the players.
|
You have to keep in mind though, the reason that the WPT is a multi-million dollar industry is because people like to watch it. Sponsors pay big bucks to be advertised on a show that gets watched by that many people. Eliminating elements that keep people into the show would of course decrease their profits dramatically. They are a business like anyone else. Of course they are going to do what nets them the most money.
There are good and bad things about this. The good thing is that we, as poker fans, are able to watch a new poker tournament every single week. The bad is that they have to include things in that tournament that appeal to the maximum amount of people. Think of it this way, if it weren't for those crazy blinds that force a lot of action, you probably wouldn't be able to watch WPT every week at all.
Posted Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:28 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Then how do you guys explain the continued success of WSOP broadcasts? The hands they show have the same retarded "excitement" factor as any WPT broadcasts, but they don't have to change their structure to screw the players.
Posted Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:45 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | | Then how do you guys explain the continued success of WSOP broadcasts? |
They're on ESPN. Everybody watches ESPN. 8)
The big problem I have is how all this forced action is misleading those players that are new to the game. They think this is regular play at any point in a tournament (and some even think so for cash games also), not just when the blinds are high and it's the final table. So, new players are getting their asses handed to them (unless they luck out) by seasoned players because they're playing like they do on TV.
As long as there are players that are willing to play, viewers who are willing to watch, and, most importantly to the WPT, sponsors that will continue to pay big bucks for this type of tournament it will continue.
Posted Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:07 pm GMT by TxShadow
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | Then how do you guys explain the continued success of WSOP broadcasts? The hands they show have the same retarded "excitement" factor as any WPT broadcasts, but they don't have to change their structure to screw the players. |
I'll venture a guess 
I'd say it is because the WSOP is a huge once a year event. It's like the world series...well it is the world series  . Anyone that is remotely interested in poker gets hyped up about it. It definately has a different appeal than WPT. It's "special". It decides who is the best, so to speak. Because of all the hype (and the major cable sports network that it airs on), sponsors are more than willing to pay big bucks to get a commercial slot. Also, there are so many players involved and so many tournaments going on that the WSOP I'm sure makes a considerable amount on tournament fees alone.
If it were a once a week show, like WPT, I am sure they would have to make major adjustments. Most people wouldn't want to watch a long (days long), grueling tournament every week. They want their quick fix, 2 hour a week poker tournament with lots of pros and lots of action.
Bottom line, the WSOP is an event. You are comparing it to a big company that airs a TV show weekly.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:15 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I thought it couldn't get worse. Then they aired the Borgata Open. I wanted to puke.
I'm now officially boycotting all WPT broadcasts.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:42 am GMT by BeerWench13
Yeah I watched that one the other night. Man, those blinds were huge in relation to the chip stacks. I never really paid much attention before, but since you pointed it out, I watched it a bit closer. Those blind structures are ridiculous.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:45 am GMT by Dat_Dude
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | I thought it couldn't get worse. Then they aired the Borgata Open. I wanted to puke.
I'm now officially boycotting all WPT broadcasts. |
It is pretty bad. So bad that enough people are complaining about it to make Sexton defend WPT in Card Player. Here is a snippet from his article:
"3. Final-Table Structures in TV Tournaments — This is a hotly discussed topic among players right now. The vast majority believe that you play for four days in a big tournament and the conclusion results in a crapshoot (because the blinds and antes are increased every 30 minutes after several hours of play in a WPT event). Players say, “Give us more time to play at the final table.” Some have suggested never increasing the blinds to more than $20,000-$40,000 (most tournaments end at the $100,000-$200,000 blinds level). This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but players need to recognize the problems that go along with this.
Most WPT final tables end in five to six hours (some have taken eight hours). The first problem with lengthening a final table is production costs. It takes a large crew to put on a WPT final table. They are there setting up hours before a final table commences, as well as breaking down the set long after it ends. Overtime costs are substantial.
Money is not the only concern. Other problems arise if you lengthen final tables. The live audience provides tremendous excitement for WPT shows. How long can you expect an audience to stay? If they did stay for 12-14 hours, how much enthusiasm would they have throughout the show? And remember, no one at the venue can see anyone’s cards (meaning, it gets boring to watch). Unless someone has a vested interest in a player, it’s very unlikely that he will stay for a long final table. This is television. What would it look like if half the seats were empty at the end of the show?
If play at the final table were lengthened, it would also create serious problems for the editors. They would have much more material to review and then try to eliminate (more time and money). It’s tough now to get everything into a two-hour program. Think how hard it would be to do if the final table took twice as long. Some suggest making two programs out of the final table. Well, the Travel Channel schedules a program every Wednesday night, and I’m sure it wants an ending to every show.
Here’s another thought: The longer a tournament lasts, the more likely it is that a top pro player will win. Some pros might think that’s great, but in truth, this would not be good for them in the long run. It’s good for poker when an amateur wins a big tournament. It enables everyone to think he can also do it, and thus results in more people entering tournaments. We need to embellish this thought: “The beauty of poker is that anyone can win.”
Players have to recognize and understand that logistical problems do exist when events are televised. A great player once said to me, “Good players don’t bitch about structures, they adapt to them.” I really like that.
The world is not perfect, and neither is tournament poker. Addressing issues such as these will make it a better place. "
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:55 am GMT by MasterShake
Another thing to remember as that without the WPT, none of these tournaments would have these huge payouts. You'd have 50 people playing for a $100,000 first prize. So it's almost a double edged sword.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:03 am GMT by BeerWench13
Good point, MS.
I will still watch. I just think it's tough for the newbies out there who are "learning" from this.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:57 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I could not disagree more with any of Sexton's points. There is no competition in the world that is "better served" by having bad players beat good players. All that does is frustrate the good players, who draw the audience. I want to see creative and good players make great moves on TV. Not a bunch of donkeys push all-in pre-flop and luck out with 2-outters on the f*cking river.
WSOP somehow manages to film the entire 12+ hour show, keep the audience in the crowd interested, AND condense the material to less than a 2 hour show. So all I'm led to believe here is that WPT management is full of cheapskates.
"Good players don't bitch about structures. They adapt to them." Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Turning the game into a move-in fest is not "adapting." It's like playing roulette.
I recognize that WPT has done a lot for Poker, and in the first three seasons they did a lot to build Poker up. But with the start of Season 4, they seem to be doing everything possible to degrade the game.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:17 pm GMT by Miss_J
| BeerWench13 wrote: | | I just think it's tough for the newbies out there who are "learning" from this. |
this doesn't bother me!
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:18 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Good point, Miss J.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:14 pm GMT by flafishy
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | Then how do you guys explain the continued success of WSOP broadcasts? The hands they show have the same retarded "excitement" factor as any WPT broadcasts, but they don't have to change their structure to screw the players. |
The WSOP is not a made-for-TV event. The WPT is.
| Quote: | | WSOP somehow manages to film the entire 12+ hour show, keep the audience in the crowd interested, AND condense the material to less than a 2 hour show. |
What audience? There is no studio audience at the WSOP.
And ESPN spends months editing that material, which doesn't air until half a year after the event. And ESPN does one event a year.
The WPT turns things around in a couple of weeks about what, 14 or 15 times a year?
Big difference.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:33 pm GMT by zinn0
| flafishy wrote: | | What audience? There is no studio audience at the WSOP. |
I beg to differ. There IS an audience around every ESPN/WSOP featured table.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:33 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
WPT was not originally "made for TV." It was merely a televised series of tournaments like the WSOP.
A few other points of fact. Including the Circuit events, WSOP aired 24 episodes last year. That "one event" including about as many tournaments as the entire WPT. Also, the WPT just aired three events in the last three weeks--The Mirage Poker Showdown, the Legends of Poker, and the Borgata Open. Those three events took place in May, August, and September of last year, respectively, so I don't buy for a minute that they didn't have enough time to edit.
I'm not trying to get in anyone's face. I simply cannot stand what WPT is doing, and I think it's horrible for Poker.
Posted Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:40 am GMT by flafishy
| zinn0 wrote: | | flafishy wrote: | | What audience? There is no studio audience at the WSOP. |
I beg to differ. There IS an audience around every ESPN/WSOP featured table. |
I didn't say there is no audience. I said there's no studio audience. The audience at the WPT events are part of the manufactured environment, while at the WSOP, they're incidental to the TV production.
It was the appearance of the WPT and its table camera (it was indeed a creation for TV) along with the movie Rounders and Moneymaker's WSOP title that spawned the current poker explosion. All of them were equally responsible.
You might not like what the WPT is doing, and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and you can choose not to watch if you want. But to say it's bad for poker is an absolutely ridiculous statement that flies in the face of reality.
Posted Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:31 pm GMT by TxShadow
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: |
I'm not trying to get in anyone's face. I simply cannot stand what WPT is doing, and I think it's horrible for Poker. |
Now don't get me wrong, I completely relate to most of the things you're saying. I would personally rather see great players make amazing reads and plays and the tournament be decided by who the best player is. However, I don't think it's fair to say that what the WPT is doing is horrible for poker.
Again, the structure that they use makes for good TV. Maybe not necessarily for you and me, but for the majority of people who may or may not be as in to poker as some of the people on this forum. Perfect example: I talk to plenty of people at my office that don't play poker at all, but they love watching the WPT. However, I can almost assure you that they couldn't tell me who won the last 3 main events in the WSOP. They don't know what "pot odds" are. They probably couldn't even name 3 top pros.
Love the WPT or hate it, but I don't think you can say that what it's doing is bad for poker. It gets people into poker that otherwise wouldn't be. The more people that are in to it, the more of it we get to watch (some good quality, some bad). Not to mention, the more people that get hooked on poker, the more profitable card rooms everywhere become. :p
Posted Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:05 pm GMT by galderon
| TxShadow wrote: | | Love the WPT or hate it, but I don't think you can say that what it's doing is bad for poker. It gets people into poker that otherwise wouldn't be. The more people that are in to it, the more of it we get to watch (some good quality, some bad). Not to mention, the more people that get hooked on poker, the more profitable card rooms everywhere become. :p |
Just look at Celebrity Poker. A lot people say, "Yeah, I'm into poker...I love watching Celebrity Poker on TV!" Of course, Celebrity Poker is far from we consider "poker". Still, it generates interest and educates people on what hands beat what, and that's usually the first stumbling block for people getting into it. WPT is kind of in-between WSOP and Celebrity.
|
|
